Justia Kentucky Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2008, Appellant stabbed and killed Cory Kessnick. Appellant filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that he was entitled to immunity under Ky. Rev. Stat. 503.085, which provides immunity from criminal prosecution to persons who use force in self defense or defense of others. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that the use of force employed by Appellant was unlawful. Appellant subsequently entered an Alford plea to charges of second-degree murder and assault under extreme emotional distress but appealed the denial of his motion to dismiss. The court of appeals reversed after undertaking a de novo review of the evidence on record. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that (1) court of appeals applied the incorrect standard of review in reversing the denial of Appellant’s motion to dismiss; and (2) under the correct standard of review, there was a substantial basis for the trial court’s rulings. View "Commonwealth v. Lemons" on Justia Law

Appellee was indicted and convicted of two counts of identity theft. Appellee’s convictions arose from allegations that Appellee opened credit card accounts and obtained checks using her ex-husband’s name and that she filed a tax return and obtained a tax refund in her daughter’s name. The court of appeals reversed both convictions, concluding that the trial court erred in denying Appellee’s motion for a directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence to prove each element of Appellee’s convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) there was insufficient evidence to convict Appellee of the conviction of identity theft relating to her ex-husband; but (2) there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict of guilt for the conviction relating to Appellee’s daughter. View "Commonwealth v. Goss" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine while in possession of a firearm, of being a convicted felon in possession of a hand gun, and possession of marijuana. The trial court sentenced Appellant as a persistent felony offender to thirty-four years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court (1) did not err by not instructing the jury on unlawful possession of a methamphetamine precursor as a lesser-included offense of manufacturing methamphetamine; and (2) did not err in denying, without an evidentiary hearing, Appellant’s motion to suppress items seized from his home, as the search was done pursuant to a valid search warrant. View "Rawls v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a trial, Appellant was convicted of first-degree sodomy, intimidating a participant in the legal process, second-degree wanton endangerment, third-degree terroristic threatening, and being a persistent felony offender in the first degree. Appellant was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not commit reversible error admitting testimony of a sexual assault nurse examiner; and (2) the trial court did not err by failing to grant Appellant’s motion for a directed verdict on the charge of intimidating a witness in the legal process. View "Edmonds v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant filed to sequential motions to suppress evidence, contending that the warrantless search of his mobile home was illegal and that the Commonwealth did not establish the proper chain of custody for the evidence seized from his home. Both motions were denied, and Defendant was found guilty as charged. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the warrantless search of Defendant's mobile home satisfied neither the textual directives of the Fourth Amendment and Section 10 of the Kentucky Constitution nor the judicially-created exception under Maryland v. Buie.View "Brumley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a prison disciplinary hearing, Appellant, a prisoner, was found guilty of committing physical action against another inmate resulting in death or serious physical injury. Appellant subsequently filed a declaration of rights action in circuit court appealing the finding of guilt, contending that his due process rights were violated because the prison’s disciplinary hearing officer refused to allow him to call the victim of the assault and declined to view surveillance camera footage of the incident. The circuit court denied the petition. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) if a prison challenges the denial of a prisoner’s request for a particular witness in a disciplinary proceeding by appealing the discipline imposed, the adjustment officer (AO) must provide for the record on review the AO’s reason for denying the witness; (2) if requested by the prisoner in a disciplinary proceeding an AO must review surveillance footage or similar documentary evidence; and (3) Appellant was found guilty and subject to prison discipline as a result of a process that failed to comport with the minimum requirements of due process. Remanded. View "Ramirez v. Nietzel" on Justia Law

Appellee was an inmate when he was allegedly involved in a riot. During an interview with an investigating officer, Appellee requested that three witnesses be questioned who could corroborate his version of events, but the witnesses were not interviewed. After a disciplinary hearing, at which Appellee did not call witnesses or present evidence in his defense, Appellee was disciplined for his participation in the riot. Appellee subsequently filed a petition for declaration of rights in the circuit court, arguing that Appellants violated his due process rights by failing to interview the three purported witnesses and by denying him the right to call witnesses and present evidence in his defense. The trial court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the hearing complied with the minimal requirements of procedural due process as outlined in Wolff v. McDonnell. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the interviewing officer’s failure to interview the requested witnesses did not deprive Appellant of procedural due process as outlined in Wolff; but (2) while Appellee did not have had the right to remain silent or the right to an attorney during his disciplinary hearing, he deserved a new disciplinary hearing because he was erroneously informed that he enjoyed the rights espoused in Miranda. View "White v. Boards-Bey" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of one count of complicity to murder and one count of first-degree complicity to robbery. Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment on the murder count and to twenty years on the robbery count. The Supreme Court affirmed Appellant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s motions for mistrial after the Commonwealth referenced two of the three co-indictees’ guilty pleas in the presence of the jury; (2) the trial court did not err by admitting eighteen jail letters written by Appellant and her co-indictee into evidence; and (3) the trial court did not err by denying Appellant’s motion for a mistrial after the jury briefly accessed inadmissible evidence during deliberations. View "Mayse v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial in 1993, Appellant was found guilty of murdering two brothers, Rodney Vaughn and Lynn Vaughn. The trial court sentenced Appellant to death for both murders. In 2013, Appellant filed a motion for post-conviction relief alleging that he was entitled to a new trial based on “newly discovered evidence.” Appellant’s challenge to his convictions was founded upon a report prepared by John Nixon, a forensic expert on firearms and ballistics, who concluded that new information supported Appellant’s version of events, thereby supporting Appellant’s claim that he acted in self-defense in shooting Rodney and that Rodney shot Lynn. The trial court summarily denied Appellant’s motion without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the “newly discovered evidence” presented by Appellant fell short of the standards that must be met to obtain such relief. View "Foley v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of murdering his wife and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, Appellant alleged, inter alia, that he was entitled to a directed verdict and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence of other acts. The Supreme Court reversed Appellant’s conviction and remanded for further proceedings, holding (1) Appellant was not entitled to a directed verdict of acquittal and therefore may be retried; and (2) the trial court’s admission of the other acts evidence was error under Ky. R. Evid. 404(b) given the Commonwealth’s failure to establish proof of the factual condition necessary to make it relevant, and the error was not harmless and prejudiced Appellant. View "Southworth v. Commonwealth" on Justia Law